Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!eastapps!helium!db
From: db@helium.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: "Emotions" in Group Software
Message-ID: <4054@eastapps.East.Sun.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 91 20:52:58 GMT
References: <4015@eastapps.East.Sun.COM> <21017@crg5.UUCP>
Sender: news@East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: db@east.sun.com (David Brownell)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Billerica MA
Lines: 23

> >If our communication's been restricted to exclude
> >those important nuances, that might increase technical content, but
> >will (guaranteed!) reduce its overall effectiveness thereby.
 
> I reach quite the opposite conclusion.  The "nuances" soak up bandwidth.
> They do not contribute to the communication of the technical information
> or resolution of the technical problems.  If emotional nuances and 
> deciphering of the nuances are excluded, the technical solution will
> be superior.  

You're saying the nuances are unimportant ... but as explained in the
problem scenario, it was impossible to get to the task issue without
addressing the non-task ones first, and the only way to find that out
was to have those "nuances".  A ** VERY COMMON SITUATION ** in all kinds
of environments; people are people.  So long as the situation is viewed
as only "technical" there may in fact be no "technical solution" at all.

In fact, if there were some better bandwidth devoted to nonverbal content
on USENET I might be able to find out why it's being hard to achieve a
reality check here; maybe I'd find my leg is just being pulled.  In any
case, enough of this waste of ASCII characters.

One of the Million monkeys ... see, here's my keyboard!